Supreme Court looking into schoolyard harassment

Published: Wednesday, January 13, 1999

WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court justices, hearing a sexual harassment case that could affect schools nationwide, questioned Tuesday how to draw the line between children's playground taunts and something more sinister.

"Little boys tease little girls," said Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. "Is every one of these incidents going to lead to a lawsuit?"

In considering a case involving a fifth-grade boy in Georgia who groped a classmate and made crude remarks, the justices must decide whether schools are to blame if educators willfully ignore and do not stop boorish conduct between students.

"How does the school define ... the harassment, as distinguished from teasing," which may be widespread and based solely on a student's sex, Justice David Souter asked. "In the first grade, boys tease girls because they are girls."

Several justices questioned whether the courtroom is the best place to settle classroom problems between boys and girls.

Justice Stephen Breyer said school teachers, principals and psychologists deal with disruptive students. Courts have only lawyers, he said.

"I don't think the latter group of people is the right one," Breyer told a lawyer for the family of LaShonda Davis.

The girl and her mother say they complained repeatedly to school officials in Monroe County, Ga., that a classmate known in court papers as "G.F." had grabbed LaShonda's breasts and crotch, simulated a sex act and made threatening remarks.

The family sued the school, claiming officials did nothing to stop G.F. The school allegedly refused to move the boy from the seat next to LaShonda, whose grades suffered during the five months of alleged harassment.

The school board said federal law does not make the school liable for a student's bad conduct. A federal appeals court threw out the family's lawsuit on the grounds that the disputed federal law does not cover harassment between fellow students.

Lubbock schools Supt. Curtis Culwell said Tuesday a Supreme Court decision regarding a Georgia school district that is accused of violating federal law by failing to stop a student from sexually harassing another student will hinge on the district's level of involvement in probing the harassment.

In dispute is whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bans sexual discrimination in an educational establishment that receives federal funding, applies to harassment between students.

Culwell said he thinks the court will look at what level of action the Georgia district took to stop or investigate the harassment.

"I think what the court will look at is that if a good faith effort was made," Culwell said. "This is just a new area that's being defined."

"You've got to investigate it very carefully," Culwell said. "You've got to respect the rights of everybody involved. We think we're already proactive in handling situations such as that."

The law, known as Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, bans sexual discrimination in any educational institution that receives federal money.

Lawyers for Aurelia Davis, LaShonda's mother, and the Clinton administration urged the justices to reverse the appeals court ruling.

Schools should be accountable if they deliberately ignore harassment that discriminates against a student by preventing learning, argued lawyer Verna Williams.

"If it knows about it ... (a school) must take reasonable steps to address and remedy it," Ms. Williams said.

But a lawyer for the school board said it is unfair to require schools to apply adult standards of conduct to children. "The potential here for litigation is enormous," said lawyer W. Warren Plowden.

Justices Antonia Scalia and Anthony Kennedy also expressed doubts about how to differentiate between schoolyard teasing and sexual harassment, and about whether educators are responsible.

LaShonda, now 16 and a high school junior, sought money from the district and an order keeping G.F. away from her. After LaShonda's mother complained to the county sheriff, the boy pleaded guilty to sexual battery.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in her case appeared vulnerable when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 last June that monetary damages could be available if a school official who had authority to do something "has actual notice of or is deliberately indifferent" to the harassment.

That decision involved a Texas teacher's sexual harassment of a high school student.

The court is expected to decide the Georgia case by July. The case is Davis vs. Monroe Board of Education, 97-843.